Dozens of US nuclear scientists sue over vaccine mandate

submitted by casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Utter bullshit. Nuclear fission plants are one of the safest and most efficient power sources that exists. Next Gen Thorium plants also are extremely promising. 1/10th of the carbon output typically as coal and gas.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

carbon being so bad and climate change is fake anyway, so why use nuclear power, they always meltdown and they have waste that is toxic for thousands of years.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They don't 'always melt down' they virtually never melt down. Again you're just talking shit. Safe, efficient and cheap no matter what you think about Carbon Dioxide.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

even melting down once is one too many. fukushima increased cancer on the west coast. No more of these, shut all the current ones down.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How many 'melt down' deaths have there been in France? Don't fucking look it up. You sound like you know all about the issue.

The vast majority of the French power supply is Nuclear and has been for decades. So tell me all about the profound danger to the country this allegedly dangerous form of power has posed.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The nuclear power plant in Fukushima had outdated reactors (which are a lot less safe than more recent nuclear reactors), and it was also built in an area prone to tsunamis. Also, the death rate by the Fukushima disaster pales in comparison to the death rate from the 2011 tsunami itself.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree that climate change is probably overexaggerated, but why take the risk if we have technology (nuclear energy) that's both more efficient and more carbon neutral anyways? If the sea levels start rising, this will flood low-lying coastal areas that are too poor, high time preference and/or low-IQ to build the infrastructure necessary to fend off the sea (i.e Bangladesh, Maldives, New Orleans), causing much more destruction than all nuclear disasters combined have ever caused.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Climate change isn't exaggerated. Climate has ALWAYS changed. It's the human role in it which is utterly insignificant, which is blown out of all proportion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

burning coal or oil leads to waste, smoke in the air. nuclear energy is basically burning atoms, it leads to waste, which gives off radiation. Chernobyl, three mile island, Fukushima, these things all did happen so I don't think the risk of nuclear radiation is fake like climate change. With climate change, it will increase world temperature by 2 degrees celcius. That is actually fine. The water level won't rise more than a few inches, it won't be like the fictional movie Waterworld. Solar power and wind power makes more sense. The rich elites don't like that as much. It's free energy. With an oil field, or a coal mine, or a nuclear power plant, they can surround it with their guards and control it and slowly dispense energy for money. Can they surround a solar power plant or a wind power plant and control it, not really, it's easy for regular people and independent nations to make their own setups.